Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24) and ahead, in most cases significantly, of all the other Pac 12 schools, including Arizona(#120). Other rankings may have them ranked differently. I don't know where you draw the line at prestigious.

Click to expand...

You can use the US News & World Report if you want... if you really need an explanation of why "prestigious academically" and "UW" don't coexeist in the same sentence, then you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let's just say that having a bare minimum of a 4.0+ GPA just to even be considered by admissions is a good sign the college is academically prestigious.

You can use the US News & World Report if you want... if you really need an explanation of why "prestigious academically" and "UW" don't coexeist in the same sentence, then you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let's just say that having a bare minimum of a 4.0+ GPA just to even be considered by admissions is a good sign the college is academically prestigious.

Click to expand...

Wow, how snobbish can you get. Let me guess, you went to Harvard, got your JD at Yale and your MD Johns Hopkins ? Your definition of academically prestigious seems to be over the top.

And the issue is not whether it is an Ivy school or not, it's how it compares to the other schools in its conference or other 'traditional tennis powerhouses'. 47th is about the lowest it is ranked anywhere, some places have it ranked as high as 16, and many places have it ranked above UCLA and USC. Sorry, you don't need a 4.0+ GPA to get into UCLA either.

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

Click to expand...

Let's look at Grace Ysidora record thus far just in the US- she has only started playing for Washington just a couple months. Here are some of the wins she has accumulated so far in this short time period:

Wow, how snobbish can you get. Let me guess, you went to Harvard, got your JD at Yale and your MD Johns Hopkins ? Your definition of academically prestigious seems to be over the top.

And the issue is not whether it is an Ivy school or not, it's how it compares to the other schools in its conference or other 'traditional tennis powerhouses'. 47th is about the lowest it is ranked anywhere, some places have it ranked as high as 16, and many places have it ranked above UCLA and USC. Sorry, you don't need a 4.0+ GPA to get into UCLA either.

I'm not sure why you need to resort to namecalling... that's what it takes to get in. If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

huh ? LOL.You must study rhetoric with Mr.Bill. You said I was "arguing fo the the sake of arguing". That's basically name calling, by any other name, AKA BS, Sorry, I dont put up with that kind of passive aggressive crap, as you may have noticed. You accuse people of 'arguing for the sake of arguing' and then play the victim card. Sweet.

that's what it takes to get in If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

Click to expand...

You left out Cal. Oh, and, conveniently, UW too. CAL is harder to get into than UCLA. In actuality, whether it's harder to get into UCLA than UW I think largely is dependent on whether you are an instate resident(hint instate GPA lower) , the particular program,etc. These are also average GPA's, not min. I am quite certain whether you are an athlete factors in too. Pop Quiz : the average athletes GPA is a) higher, ) equal too, c) lower or d) significantly lower than the average students GPA ?

Really, this is preposterous. You accuse me of being the one of auguring for the sake of arguing and your point that UCLA is some kind of Cambridge upon LA River. Seriously ??

At the end of the day, UW offers educational opportunities an a reputation that equal or exceeds the majority of institutions in the PAC-12, including UCLA. Whether you want to call it prestigious or not is really pretty inconsequential. What matter is that there are quite a few Americans who would not mind having their children earn a degree from UW, an ultimately those are the voices that will matter.

You crack me up jiggly. You're really grasping at straws now. Ardent supporter of the pedigreed society are we? Go Google the phrase the "Getting In is the Hardest Part". See what shows up.

Really pathetic. Any "study" that evaluates kids or an educational institution based on what it takes to get in rather than the how the real word evaluates the students it turns out isn't worthy of being used to wipe my ass.

I'm not sure why you need to resort to namecalling... that's what it takes to get in. If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between average and minimum ? Back to your prestigious alma mater to study English vocabulary, please.

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

You crack me up jiggly. You're really grasping at straws now. Ardent supporter of the pedigreed society are we? Go Google the phrase the "Getting In is the Hardest Part". See what shows up.

Really pathetic. Any "study" that evaluates kids or an educational institution based on what it takes to get in rather than the how the real word evaluates the students it turns out isn't worthy of being used to wipe my ass.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at. Nothing in this world is guaranteed.

"Pedigree" has nothing to do with it. Study your butt off, you'll get into better schools.

And how exactly does the real world evaluate students? Money? Happiness? I guess you won't be wiping your ass anytime soon.

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like Blue Chips are better than five stars and so forth. I'm sure the 5, 4, and 3 stars would beg to differ, but it is what it is.

Pretty straightforward concept here. Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit. Kind of like measuring a tennis team based on the stars of its recruits rather than its performance. Of course any UC system school is overrated by measuring the inputs, huge population base to draw from and huge discounts for instate students.

"Pedigree" has nothing to do with it. Study your butt off, you'll get into better schools.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the pedigree of the school, and subsequently the students once they graduate. It has everything to do with it. Ivy League schools learned ago that he endowment grows a lot faster when everybody gets A's and high paying jobs at law firms and investment banks. Give the kids C's and they dont get good jobs and seem to donate less the the capital campaigns. Can't have that now can we. Remember, the guys running these places are pretty sharp tacks. Hence the phrase "the hardest part is getting in". I didn't just make that up. Its a pretty simple business plan: Get the top .5% of kids who are probably going to be successful no matter how bad we screw them up, and then they will wear our shirts and send us checks for the rest of their lives...

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

Click to expand...

Junior players who may be reading :

Ask not what you can do for you school, but what your school can do for you.

You need to look beyond how your test scores compare to the to the test scores of the other student. None of that matters after school starts, unless all you are looking to get in and get a pedigree. If you are really interested in an education, than you need look at your particular major and how students in that particular major are view by the market place. If you are pre-med, what med schools do the kids get into? etc ?

Pretty straightforward concept here. Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit. Kind of like measuring a tennis team based on the stars of its recruits rather than its performance. Of course any UC system school is overrated by measuring the inputs, huge population base to draw from and huge discounts for instate students.

By the way, that is #16 in the world, not in the U.S.A. So, if we believe those rankings, then UW is ahead of every public university in the country except Cal-Berkeley, as well as being ahead of such private schools as Johns Hopkins, Carnegie-Mellon, Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

Of course, the Shanghai rankings are based almost entirely on the faculty: awards received, research papers published, citation rankings for research papers, and so on. So, like most rankings, these are not measures of output, which was your criticism of other rankings. Undergraduate students at colleges do not get to study at the feet of Nobel prize winners. I got B.S. and M.S. degrees at a school with a Nobel laureate in Physics, but he made no difference to my education in Computer Science. Ranking based on anything besides inputs is very hard. If I get time, I will start a thread about a study that actually measured outputs. The elite colleges were not thrilled with the study, by the way.

If I get time, I will start a thread about a study that actually measured outputs. The elite colleges were not thrilled with the study, by the way.

Click to expand...

Great, I hope you find time. That's what I was asking for in my post prior to this.

I think this has been an interesting tangent from the topic of whether Jill Hultquist is at a recruiting disadvantage athletically or academically vis-a-vis other Pac-12 schools. It was in this context that another poster raised the issue of UW's academic "prestige".....which led to the tangent

Right now I would consider Stanford, UCLA, Berkeley, and USC in the Pac-12 to have tennis recruiting advantages over UW both athletically and academically, based on subjective considerations. Welcome any objective information that would confirm or refute this

In the meantime, here is the PayScale 2012-2013 College Salary Report, with rankings in descending order of "mid-career salary". UW is listed as tied for 98th with Fordham. It is easy to find where other Pac-12, Ivy, whatever other schools rank.

This is not dispositive. Mid-career salary isn't everything. Just a bone to chew on for those who like to see published data. Eager to see what is posted by Clark and whoever else might have some objective information.

I spent a little time looking over girls' tennis commitments for blue chips and five stars. The question I was asking was: How realistic is it to recruit a girl to come a pretty good distance AND ask her to come significantly farther north? I asked this question because I postulated that weather is significant in tennis recruiting.

The commitments (five star and blue chip girls) seemed to break down into these categories:

1. Colleges that are sunnier and warmer than UW.
2. Ivy League colleges.
3. A few M-i-d-w-e-s-t-ern girls who stayed close to home at Big 10 colleges and Notre Dame.

It is very rare to find otherwise. Out of 75 blue chip and five star girls, you will find a couple each year who do not fit these categories. For example, this year Northwestern has a five-star commitment from a girl in Los Angeles, and Michigan State has a five-star commitment from Florida. The other seven top commitments to Big 10 schools this year are from Illinois (3), Michigan (2), Ohio (1) and Massachusetts (1). Out of the 17 blue chip commitments so far this season, the only one that looks geographically odd is a commitment by a California girl to Oklahoma State. The only players who committed to schools farther north than Oklahoma State already lived farther north. An Oklahoma blue chip committed to USC. In fact, the odd thing is that there are not many girls from colder places committing to warmer places; one New York girl committed to North Carolina, five girls from cooler places stayed in the cooler regions (Harvard-2, Northwestern-2, Boston College-1) and the other eleven girls came from warm/moderate locations and went to the same kind of weather. Scanning the five-star commitments shows a similar pattern.

One conclusion is that coaches at cooler or rainier or snowier places are wise to recruit girls who are already used to that. Another conclusion is that such places produce fewer top players than warmer places. And another conclusion is that these fewer top players will be highly sought by the Ivies and the top Big 10 programs. If the UW coach fails to convince an Ohio girl to come to UW instead of to Northwestern or Michigan, I am not sure that means she is a bad recruiter. Maybe the girls want to stay closer to home, and other programs have more tennis reputation and plenty good enough academic reputation. There are about 3-4 girls in the top 75 each year who seem to buck these trends, and I am not sure that I can demand that one coach get half of them.

By the way, that is #16 in the world, not in the U.S.A. So, if we believe those rankings, then UW is ahead of every public university in the country except Cal-Berkeley, as well as being ahead of such private schools as Johns Hopkins, Carnegie-Mellon, Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

Of course, the Shanghai rankings are based almost entirely on the faculty: awards received, research papers published, citation rankings for research papers, and so on. So, like most rankings, these are not measures of output, which was your criticism of other rankings. Undergraduate students at colleges do not get to study at the feet of Nobel prize winners. I got B.S. and M.S. degrees at a school with a Nobel laureate in Physics, but he made no difference to my education in Computer Science. Ranking based on anything besides inputs is very hard. If I get time, I will start a thread about a study that actually measured outputs. The elite colleges were not thrilled with the study, by the way.

Click to expand...

This was not meant as an endorsement of that particular ranking. I know next to nothing about it, I will take your word that it is what you say it is. I was just showing an example of ranking that takes into account more than the incoming grades/scores of the students. I thought it curious myself that UW was so high.

UW grads do better or are "viewed better" in various professional marketplaces than those from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, the Ivies, and other top colleges? This is what we are discussing, right?

If this is just someone's anonymous message board opinion, cool. If it is being represented as fact, can anyone post a link or citation? If I am misreading something, I'm sure I'll hear about it!

As far as the advice that kids should pick schools that will best help them achieve their career objectives......very insightful and perceptive.....I think we can all agree on that one.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I wrote or implied. Never said that. Here is what I wrote.

"Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24)"​

I personally think UCLA is overrated but it doesn't matter. I think the above numbers are close enough. I suspect if you went program by program, UCLA might have the edge in some and UW might have the edge on others. I thought the discussion had morphed into what the definition of "academically prestigious" was.

And aside from being ranked 46, it is substantially ahead of all the other pac12 schools not lsited above

Right now I would consider Stanford, UCLA, Berkeley, and USC in the Pac-12 to have tennis recruiting advantages over UW both athletically and academically, based on subjective considerations. Welcome any objective information that would confirm or refute this

Click to expand...

Academically, I basically agree with this, I would just add that UW is much closer to this group of schools, than they are to Arizona, Arizona State, and the balance of schools in the Pac-12. Some people my not consider it academically prestigious, fine, to each his own.

I dont think its a huge disadvantage, and I would also add that being extremely strong academically can present its own problems recruiting : I don't know if has been an issue in tennis, but I know in other sports Stanford has had problems getting some of its recruits academically eligible. While Stanford does have some leeway for athletes, its not as much as many people think. I suspect there are quite a few Blue Chips who would not qualify academically for Stanford. I suspect Cal has similar issues.

No, that's not what I wrote or implied. Never said that. Here is what I wrote.

"Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24)"​

I personally think UCLA is overrated but it doesn't matter. I think the above numbers are close enough. I suspect if you went program by program, UCLA might have the edge in some and UW might have the edge on others. I thought the discussion had morphed into what the definition of "academically prestigious" was.

And aside from being ranked 46, it is substantially ahead of all the other pac12 schools not lsited above

Click to expand...

What is the source for this? I checked US News and World Report and UW is #46, so maybe that is the source?

So, "input"-based is what we should look at and respect? Or "output-based"? Someone said, "Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit."

I am either confused, or getting dragged in by someone who wants to argue for the sake of arguing............or both

Anyway, your most recent conclusions about UW's academic reputation, and Clark's substantive research, are reinforcing my opinion that UW is at a tennis recruiting disadvantage, academically and/or athletically, to most of its Pac-12 competition and many top programs in the South, Southeast, and even several in the Big Ten.

If Jill Hultquist is able to get one top-50 TRN each year, I think she is doing great. If she chooses to go overseas if she can't fill her quota top-50, instead of going to 4-stars in her backyard...to stay competitive..... still no criticism from me.

EDIT: If you have time, maybe some readers would find it useful if you share with the Board the sources for your conclusion that UW is generally in the top-50 American universities, "input" or "output". Not a challenge, I'm cool if you don't

So, "input"-based is what we should look at and respect? Or "output-based"? Someone said, "Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit."

I am either confused, or getting dragged in by someone who wants to argue for the sake of arguing............or both

Anyway, your most recent conclusions about UW's academic reputation, and Clark's substantive research, are reinforcing my opinion that UW is at a tennis recruiting disadvantage, academically and/or athletically, to most of its Pac-12 competition and many top programs in the South, Southeast, and even several in the Big Ten.

Click to expand...

You make my head spin. You are confused, and/or arguing for the sake of arguing.

US News is the source for the original rankings. Here's another were they are 35. http://www.thebestcolleges.org/rankings/top-50/. That particular list has UCLA behind them at 41, which seem more right to me, but that is just an opinion,as in fact are all these "rankings". I posted another one yesterday that had them 16. I am sure I could spend some time and come up with more sources but I am not going to. There is no point. I stated from the beginning that USC, Cal and Stanford were academically superior, that UCLA was close, but that those four, and UW, were significantly more academically prestigious than the balance of the conference. Then thread then went off on a tangent that had to do with what qualified an institution as 'prestigious', as another poster took exception to my usage of that word in the same sentence as UW, and seems to believe that prestigious(tm) should be reserved for exclusive use by a small number Ivy and Ivy equivalent colleges, one of which I suspect he attended.

Where we separate is I don't see how you reach the conclusion that UW "is tennis recruiting disadvantage, academically and/or athletically, to most of its Pac-12 competition" when in fact, as far as academic reputation, it's about 5th (and arguably 4th) academically in a conference of 12(albeit on that does not field a tennis team). Academically, it's certainly not at a disadvantage to Arizona and Arizona State, who have been much more successful at recruiting American Blue Chips and Five Stars.

EDIT: If you have time, maybe some readers would find it useful if you share with the Board the sources for your conclusion that UW is generally in the top-50 American universities. Not a challenge, I'm cool if you you don't

Click to expand...

I'll pass. I have done more than enough. I'll just stick with my unproven assertion. I really have no idea why you are having a hard time believing this, other than that challenging the academic reputation of UW supports your arguments in support of coach Hulquist;

How do you get more than a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale? Are you guys using a different scale?

Click to expand...

That would have been nice where I went to school. The valedictorians took mostly typing courses, while in the AP courses, they only gave a limited percentage of A's, forcing us to compete against each other, so none of us had the highest GPAs.

You Academically, it's certainly not at a disadvantage to Arizona and Arizona State, who have been much more successful at recruiting American Blue Chips and Five Stars.

Click to expand...

My neighbor's son, who could have gone to MIT or any Ivy school chose to go to Arizona State because they had a particular program for academically gifted kids that he wanted to go to. If a school has a more tailorable curiculum it could attract high achieving kids.
Also, not all tennis players want to work that hard in college.

In February of her junior year, Anna Kate Anderson, visited SMU, where Jack, her brother, is a sophomore majoring in business and studio art. During this visit, she approached Head Coach Kati Gyulai to learn more about the tennis program.

Anna Kate Anderson has always loved SMU
"I was open as to where I wanted to go," the five-star recruit said. "But I didn't really want to play in the Northeast or the M-i-d-w-e-s-t because I didn't want to play indoors, so that narrowed down a lot of schools."